There is no difference in law between a Citizen of the United States At Birth and a Natural Born Citizen.
Under the law in effect when Ted Cruz was born, he is a Citizen of the United States At Birth.
Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by a Child Born Abroad
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock
“A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child’s birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be genetically related to the child to transmit U.S. citizenship.”
According to Justice Antonin Scalia with Justice Clarence Thomas concurring in Scalia’s opinion in Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998),
“The 14th Amendment contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization.” That’s a quote from US v. Wong Kim Ark.
If you don’t have Scalia and Thomas, you can’t win with a Vattel/Minor theory at the Supreme Court.
The US citizenship of Mr. Cruz is due to collective naturalization by naturalization statute.
A law which declares him to be a "naturalized" citizen. Here you are again, spreading crap, and contradicting people who actually know what they are talking about.
Do you think you are serving the interests of your Country by intentionally interfering with efforts to create an accurate understanding of this issue?
Some People are Ignorantly, and others are Deliberately, confusing the difference between "naturalization at birth" and "natural citizen" at birth. You are behaving like the later.
That's the prevailing view on the subject among legal scholars, though I'd stop just short of calling it the consensus view. It is not, however, a popular view on Free Republic. There is no definitive point of view, because SCOTUS hasn't ruled on point.
If you don’t have Scalia and Thomas, you can’t win with a Vattel/Minor theory at the Supreme Court.
I think that's safe to say.